SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Prediction models for the occurrence and mortality of sepsis-associated lung injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sepsis is a life-threatening syndrome driven by dysregulated inflammation and immunity, often leading to multiple organ dysfunction. The lung is commonly affected early, and sepsis-related lung injury, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), is associated with poor survival. Although models have been proposed to predict lung injury and short-term mortality once injury occurs, their performance, methods, and certainty of evidence remain insufficiently assessed. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to December 11, 2025. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed with PROBAST, and certainty of evidence was appraised using an AUC-based adaptation of GRADE. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. The individual prediction model was the unit of analysis. We extracted AUC, sensitivity, and specificity. Pooled estimates were calculated separately for ARDS occurrence and short-term mortality in sepsis-associated lung injury, and separately for training, validation, and test phases, with no pooling across phases. Results: Nine studies were included, eight of them from China. Together they reported 68 model phase units: 24 training, 21 validation, and 23 test AUCs. PROBAST classified 4 studies as having high overall risk of bias and 6 as having unclear risk; only three studies had low concern for applicability. Certainty of evidence was low for all outcome families and modeling phases. For ARDS occurrence, the pooled test-phase AUC was 0.749 (95% CI, 0.648-0.849; Conclusion: Current models showed moderate discrimination, but their clinical use is limited by bias, weak methods, low certainty, and heterogeneity. ARDS occurrence and mortality should be developed, validated, and reported separately. Future work needs transparent designs and external validation before implementation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251275870, identifier CRD42025127587.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.